THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 270
19 February 1997
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) heard Fred Dobney's proposal to add a Vice Provost
for Instruction and to upgrade the position of Dean
of students to Vice Provost and the Director of
Information Technology to Vice Provost.
(2) passed Proposal 6-97, Recommendation to Change
Retirement Medical Benefit Plan, to expunge the
retirement medical benefit "plan" as modified,
presumably by the University lawyer, and to re-instate it as the "program" approved by the Board of
Control.
(3) passed an amended Proposal 8-97, Recommended
Amendment to Proposed New TIAA-CREF Retiree
Health Care Benefits, as an emergency proposal.
This amended proposal endorsed the Provost's
TIAA-CREF health care benefits program and 2+2
plan with a recommendation to include a sliding
scale health care benefits designed to phase out
retiree health care, with the scale to be determined
later after cost analysis to keep the costs comparable
to the Provost's program. Proposal 8-97 would
eliminate IRS costs by removing any choice.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called Senate Meeting 270 to
order at 5:33 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 February 1997, in
Room B45 of the Electrical Energy Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were
representatives from Met & Mat Eng, Army/Air Force
ROTC, and Student Affairs/Ed Opportunities. Liaisons
in attendance were Evan Schemm (GSC) and Ted Soldan
(Staff Council).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Duane Thayer (Met & Mat Eng),
Mike Gilles (Research Serv), Les Leifer (Chemistry), Fred
Dobney (Provost), and Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Leifer requested that item 8C be moved up in the
agenda. Vichich asked that item 8C be moved prior to
the new business after item 6. There was no objection.
Pegg MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion to
approve the agenda as amended. The motion to approve
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent. [Appendix A.
NOTE: Only official Senate and Library archival copies
of the minutes will contain a full complement of
appendices.]
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETING 269
Senator Sloan requested that roll call votes be
consistent in use of first and last names.
Mroz MOVED and Richter seconded the motion to
approve the minutes of meeting 269 as amended. The
motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. REPORT FROM SENATE PRESIDENT
President Bornhorst has received approval of
Proposal 2-97, Trial Use of Alternate Student
Evaluations.
President Bornhorst sent letters to the three
individuals who had been voted in to the Senate as
constituents. [Appendices B and C]
The officers met with the Provost on 18 February.
After discussions among the officers, Provost, and Kurt
Pregitzer, President Bornhorst suggested that the
Research Policy Committee should meet with Sung Lee
to decide on any follow up on the defeated Proposal 3-97, which was rejected by a close vote.
6. COMMITTEE BUSINESS/REPORTS
A. Administrative Structure - Provost Dobney
[Appendix D]
Provost Dobney asked for feedback on a proposal he
plans to take to the Board of Control regarding the
Administrative structure. He has 23 direct reports, with
about 95% of the University reporting to him. Using 1%
realignment money, the Provost has been able to move
$400,000 from administrative budgets to academic
budgets. He is concerned, however, that he cannot give
enough time to some issues, especially undergraduate
education. There is no-one to devote full time to the
broad picture. His proposal is to create a new position at
the level of Vice Provost and fill it internally. The
position would have responsibility for International
Programs; the Center for Teaching, Learning, and
Faculty Development; University Curriculum Review;
Rhodes, Marshall, and Fulbright Scholarships; General
Education Committee; Pre-Professional Programs;
Distance Education; Educational Opportunities;
Assessment; Innovation Center.
In addition to this new position, he proposed two
title changes to Vice Provost: Director of Information
Technology (Jim Cross), Dean of Student Affairs (Marty
Janners).
This set of changes would make a statement of what
is important at MTU (undergraduate education). It
would also increase the diversity in the central
administration. The upgrade would make Jim Cross
more effective in presentations among other
professionals in his field and would make the position
more attractive.
In this hierarchy scheme, the new Vice Provost
positions would be at the same level as a Dean.
The Provost does not anticipate any additional cost
due to these two position upgrades.
Senator Gale expressed concerns over the increase of
bureaucracy. Four years ago several positions were
combined to create one position of Provost and Vice
President. This move was intended to streamline costs.
Senator Leifer stated that he wanted to see a cost
analysis.
Dobney stated that the cost would be about that of a
new Assistant Professor due to a trickle-down effect.
Any increase in salary depends on the present
appointment of the person who is awarded the position,
including issues of 9 vs 12 month appointment. When
asked about secretarial support, he stated that the
secretary in the Center for Learning, Teaching, and
Faculty Development could handle the secretarial needs.
Dobney then asked for Senators to address the
philosophical issue of giving direction to the
undergraduate program.
Senator Suryanarayana asked for clarification that
the Provost controls 95% of the University budget, which
Dobney verified. Suryanarayana then asked if other
persons already holding positions within the University
could handle some of the responsibilities now handled
by the Provost leaving the Provost more time for
undergraduate instruction. Dobney responded that even
half time is not enough.
Senator Walck stated that at present undergraduate
education is decentralized. It needs one person to focus
on it. She doesn't like adding positions. However, we
bill ourselves as primarily an undergraduate university
but no one oversees the undergraduate program.
Senator Santeford stated that we must do something
with budgeting to improve the undergraduate
education. Faculty have gotten the message that
research counts because that is what funds the
departments. He asked why limit the distance education
to undergraduates.
Dobney responded that he did not intend to limit
that to undergraduates, but he wanted to emphasize
undergraduates in the new position.
Senator Williams stated that such a change in
organization should be presented to the entire
University. Dobney responded that he had presented it
to the Deans, the Senate officers, the USG, some
members of the Board of Control, and now he is
presenting it to the Senate.
Thayer (Met & Mat Eng) stated that this has been
primarily an undergraduate university. Excellence in
undergraduate education happens in the classroom, not
in a Board room. Putting more on the "top end" takes
away from the undergraduate budget.
Dobney responded that we are a more complex
institution than we were 30 years ago and that more
offices are required to support that complexity.
Senator Seely stated that most institutions have a
Vice President for Academic Planning and keep this
person out of the daily "brush fires." We need someone
to look more broadly.
Dobney stated that such was his intent in creating
the position. The Academic Forum helps; it would be
ideal if some one person is responsible for this.
Senator Co voiced concern that if this person does
not teach he/she won't know what goes on.
Dobney responded that this person would continue
to teach; there would probably be a turnover in the
position every 3-5 years.
Senator Williams asked why we should raise the
level of two positions; the Dean of Students should
report to this new position because of the involvement in
undergraduate education.
Senator Arbabi stated that in his experience an
upgrade of title ultimately involves more funding.
Senator Lutzke stated that he couldn't see why
anyone would want the job of Provost without
delegating. Therefore if one person concentrates on the
undergraduate issues, it would decentralize some of
these functions.
Dobney responded that he worries about the
undergraduate education program the most.
Walck stated that her work with assessment has
pointed out the need for money in undergraduate
education and the person in the new position should
work with the Vice President for Advancement to get
more money for undergraduate education.
Dobney added that the position would place an
advocate for undergraduate funding in the Provost's
office. The new Director of the Center for Teaching,
Learning, and Faculty Development has asked the
Provost to prioritize Learning Centers for budget
considerations; no one has given them priority
previously. A single person with undergraduate
education as sole responsibility is more likely to seek
external support for that program.
Senator Pegg asked if the Senate Curricular Policy
Committee would cease to function. Dobney responded
that the committee would probably have more work.
Pegg asked if that Committee has ever approached the
need for support for Learning Centers and Dobney
responded that he was not aware that they ever had.
Gale stated that the University is experiencing an
increase in undergraduate applications and that these
are the result of work by many faculty who have made
phone calls, etc. These things must be done by the
faculty.
Dobney agreed and stated that the addition of this
position would not make a quantum leap. But at present
there is no one to look at the global picture, issues related
to scheduling or 210 vs 192 credits required for
graduation.
Mroz stated that we have a Vice President for
Research, but not one for education. Therefore, this
position would put more focus on education. We haven't
exploited the advantages of our locality for summer
school.
B. Ad Hoc Constitution Committee
President Bornhorst reported that the Constitution
Committee consisted of Keen, Lutzke, Heyman, and
Bornhorst. He credited Keen with a large portion of the
work. He pointed out that the Constitution needs two
separate votes within a 6-month period and must pass by
a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to be changed,
followed by a majority vote of all the Senate Constituents
(as they were based on the 1993 Constitution). The
bylaws require only one 2/3 vote of the Senate and no
constituent vote.
He pointed out that there is some urgency because
the Senate had voted to include the professional staff for
one more year of trial. Therefore, the Senate must decide
by the end of spring quarter (14 May) so that there can
be a referendum of constituents by the end of final exam
week.
Bornhorst then reviewed the major changes
proposed for the Constitution. The 1993 Constitution
accorded the Senate a central role. The inclusion of
certain staff in the constituency was a compromise. In
redrafting the Constitution, the Committee focused on
sharpening of the constituent status and in clearly
defining the roles of the various units on academic issues
by defining each unit as academic or non-academic and
making clear which units have responsibility (and voting
rights) for each type of issue. Item III in the new draft
precludes the expansion of voting units at the time of
voting - voting units are defined based on the issue. All
Senators can debate all issues; an issue can be stopped by
filibuster; debate can be stopped only by a 2/3 vote of all
Senators. The new draft also clarifies the committee
structure and functions.
Bornhorst proposed that the Senate discuss the draft
on 12 March, that we cancel the meeting scheduled for 26
March, but that if more time is needed to discuss the
Constitution we should have a special meeting in April.
Senator Nordberg asked what would happen if we
don't approve the new Constitution.
Bornhorst replied that the constituency would go
back to what it was two years ago when only a segment
of the staff was considered in the constituency (1993
Constitution).
Senator Leifer suggested that Keen and Heuvers
(Math Sci) be invited to a Senate meeting to comment on
the new draft of the Constitution.
Senator Williams stated that we could vote to
continue the status quo for another year if we are unable
to bring this issue to a vote by the needed date.
Bornhorst responded that it was true, but that it
probably was not in the best interest of the Senate to
delay the vote.
Leifer reminded the Senate that since another year
has passed the staff may no longer want to remain in the
Senate.
8. OLD BUSINESS
C. Proposal 6-97: Recommendation to Change
Retirement Medical Benefit Plan [Appendix E]
Arbabi MOVED and Pegg seconded the motion to
approve Proposal 6-97.
Senator Leifer stated that he would speak as an
individual and not as a member of the Fringe Benefits
Committee. He raised the issue to expunge "the plan."
It is designed to kick out the people with higher medical
costs, and that is contrary to the central purpose of
medical insurance. A marvelous program isn't worth the
powder to blow it away with "the plan" in place. "The
plan" is adversarial and is ethically and morally wrong.
Such a philosophy shouldn't be fostered on this campus.
If we keep this "plan," our next step should be
adversarial. "The plan" doesn't protect the Board or the
Administration; it only hurts the employees. The new
Board member, Robert Thompson, has complimented the
faculty on their hard work. How could anyone retire
under that "plan?" Crying that there are no funds is
nonsense. Expunging "the plan" would build morale.
Provost Dobney stated flatly that he agreed with
Leifer.
Senator Whitt stated that she was interested to know
the history of "the plan."
Dobney responded that he didn't know about "the
plan" until a year ago. The committee who negotiated
"the program" hadn't seen it. Things were added after
the Board of Control approved "the program," probably
by the Board's attorney.
Whitt asked if the Board had approved the
additions. Does the Board's attorney have this kind of
power to change an approved program?
Dobney answered that someone must have
approved the changes, but it certainly was not him. He
wants to reduce the power and influence of external
agents. Until the Board changes its relationship with its
attorney, however, he must work with the Board
attorney.
Senator Mroz asked if there must be further
negotiation [since the Board had not approved "the
plan"]; what is the next step? If we do expunge "the
plan," what would happen, for example, if Leifer were to
marry an 18-year-old?
Leifer stated that the Fringe Benefits Committee was
always diligent in stating "at time of retirement." Since
"the plan" was not passed by the Board, the
Administration can remove it "in a heartbeat." The
additions made to "the program" by "the plan" should be
taken out promptly.
Senator Vichich stated that there were two
documents, one passed by the Board and referred to as
"the program," and one with later additions called "the
plan."
Dobney stated that the attorney has convinced the
Board that they have passed "the plan." However, he
will NOT enforce it while he is here.
Senator Arbabi stated that the Board of Control had
approved "the program;" the word "plan" crept in later
and the Board never saw "the plan," nor did the Fringe
Benefits Committee.
Pegg asked if those who retire during the period of
"the plan" and signed "the plan" would be released from
it.
Leifer stated that if it is expunged, it would have no
effect and they would use "the program."
There was no further discussion. Bornhorst ruled
that the voting units included the entire Senate. There
was no objection.
Proposal 6-97 to expunge "the plan" PASSED on
voice vote with no dissent.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposal 7-97: Recommendation to Change Section
6.3.1 of Faculty Handbook [Appendix F] The proposal was introduced.
B. Proposal 8-97: Recommended Amendment to
Proposed New TIAA-CREF Retiree Health Care
Benefits [Appendix G]
The proposal was introduced.
Arbabi MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion to
consider Proposal 8-97 as an emergency measure. The
Board of Control will decide on the health care package
for retirees at its next meeting.
Bornhorst ruled that the voting units included the
full Senate. There was no objection.
Provost Dobney raised concern that there was no
cost analysis so that it would be difficult to vote
responsibly.
Senator Arbabi responded that the Fringe Benefits
Committee had deliberately left the scale for a later
decision so that it could be made cost-effective. The
reason for the change was to remove IRS costs by
removing the choice.
President Bornhorst responded that we haven't yet
approved the sense of the Provost's program and that we
should agree to it first before providing our input on
desired modifications. Because of the sentiment
expressed at the last Board meeting, we should make it
clear if we do not want an arbitrary cutoff age.
Dobney asked where the committee got the percent
tax figure they stated in their communications [since it
was a higher percentage than should be paid by anyone
on an MTU salary].
Leifer responded that if we pay 28% federal tax plus
5% state tax, we would pay 33% tax. This offers no
advantage to anyone (employee or University).
Therefore, the University should get the benefit, not the
IRS.
Senator Sloan stated that the Senate has procedures.
There is no motion on the Provost's plan. However, we
always do amendments before the main motion is
passed, but there is no main motion.
Senator Suryanarayana asked if the Medical
insurance issue had to be decided at the March meeting,
or could it be delayed to give closer consideration to the
new proposal from the Fringe Benefits Committee.
Dobney responded that this issue has been on the
Board agenda for the last five meetings. The Board is
sick of it and they are ready to decide.
Senator Sweany stated that it looks like it is a way to
have a program that has the same cost as Dobney's
program and to save money from going to the IRS.
However, we have a moving target every time the issue
goes to the Board. Has the Provost exceeded the number
of changes or can he slip in one more.
Dobney replied, tongue in cheek, "anything is
possible when you have the kind of power I have."
Senator Gilles stated that taxability was a concern to
the Board; this proposal puts the dollars back to the
University and reduces the cost; the Committee tried to
avoid specifics. We can't anticipate retiree ages. As an
example, however, if he retires in 8 years at age 63, then
he would have 100% premium paid by the University for
2 years. If he lives to be 90, the cost to the University,
under the Provost's plan, would be $1640 per year
($41,000 total), bringing the total cost to $49,200. Under
the proposal suggested by the Fringe Benefits Committee
as Bulletin #1, there would be an immediate
implementation of the 2+2 plan that would cost the
University approximately $8000. During the two years
of retirement prior to age 65, the University would pay
out $6560 to cover health care premiums because he
would have a 20% copay. The end cost to the University
would be $47,360. This is roughly $2000 less cost to the
University; he would get the same benefits and the
University would save the IRS money. He concludes
that the University would save money with the
amendment.
There was no further discussion.
A secret ballot on treating this as an emergency
proposal PASSED with 24 yes and 12 no votes.
Vichich stated that since we do not have all the
information needed to do a financial analysis, we can
decide on the sliding scale later.
Mroz MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion that
the Senate endorses the Provost's TIAA-CREF Retiree
Health Care Benefits Program as presented to the Senate
on February 5, 1997, with the following amendment:
[this amendment is proposal 8-97].
Arbabi expressed concern about the lack of
prefunding. The Committee did not decide to endorse
the Provost's program; there may be additional concerns.
Leifer explained that they did not decide to endorse
the Provost's program, but that if it is approved, they
would recommend that these additional provisions be
added to it.
Sweany stated that we need to support the program
and endorse the latest proposal from the Provost. He
questioned whether there was any hidden agenda, based
on comments made by Arbabi.
Gilles stated that he agreed wholeheartedly that we
need to support the Provost's proposal. The Board is
feeling shaky at best; if we don't support the Provost, the
Board may decide on a cut off.
Arbabi stated that there was no hidden agenda. The
problem is that the Fringe Benefits Committee can't keep
up with the changes, so they are not ready to endorse the
Program presented by the Provost.
Sloan MOVED and Reed seconded the motion to call
the question. Bornhorst ruled that we would move
forward to vote on the amendment proposed by Mroz.
The motion to modify Proposal 8-97 to include support
of the Provost's proposal PASSED on voice vote with no
dissent.
Bornhorst ruled that the change was not editorial.
Senator Nordberg objected. Senator Suryanarayana
argued that there were so many questions raised that the
change was not trivial. Vichich stated that the
terminology of the amendment in Proposal 8-97 implies
approval of the Provost's program. Reed MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to call
the question. The motion to stop debate PASSED with
some dissent.
Bornhorst asked for a vote to determine if the Senate
wished to consider the amendment as an editorial
change. The Senate VOTED YES with no dissent.
Sloan MOVED and Vichich seconded the motion to
call the question on Proposal 8-97. The motion to call the
question PASSED with no dissent.
The motion to approve Proposal 8-97 as amended
PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
Vichich MOVED and Lutzke seconded the motion to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate